Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
15" MacBook Air?
- Thread starter gwest
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They could about fit a 15" LCD in the 13.3" MBA's footprint, so I don't think it's out of the question. I think you have a better chance of the MBP being a lot more like the MBA with the 2012 updates, so that might be what we look forward to seeing. I am far far more interested in the 2012 MBPs than I am in the 2011 MBAs. I think the transition for the next MBPs to seem like these MBAs has to be with the next major redesign update which is rumored to be Mid-2012.
But...
In this discussion everyone seems to focus on the major difference of the Pro vs Air as portability, thus assuming the Air wouldn't go to 15" because it's not as portable and would then become a version of the MBP. But there's another major difference- computing power. The Pro is going to have to maintain its ability to do power-computing, like video editing in FCP. That's not going to be an affordable option for quite some time with cost cost of SSS. There are lots of reasons for greater screen space that don't also require the power and storage that the Pros will always provide.
In this discussion everyone seems to focus on the major difference of the Pro vs Air as portability, thus assuming the Air wouldn't go to 15" because it's not as portable and would then become a version of the MBP. But there's another major difference- computing power. The Pro is going to have to maintain its ability to do power-computing, like video editing in FCP. That's not going to be an affordable option for quite some time with cost cost of SSS. There are lots of reasons for greater screen space that don't also require the power and storage that the Pros will always provide.
Over time, (the next few years), I'd expect to see the cost of SSDs come down quite a bit, and the storage capacity of the SSD to increase considerably (remember USB sticks - only a few years ago 1GB or 2GB cost nearly 100).
So, I would expect to see SSD to become the norm fairly rapidly in computers. I agree with Scottsdale that this is the way computer design is going, but I doubt we'll see it in the very near future.
Cheers
So, I would expect to see SSD to become the norm fairly rapidly in computers. I agree with Scottsdale that this is the way computer design is going, but I doubt we'll see it in the very near future.
Cheers
Apple's default resolution on 15" MBPs is 1440x900, same as the 13" MBA. The only way you'd get more "Screen space" is if they put the optional hi-res panel in a 15" MBA.
But then again, Sony produces 1920x1080 in 13" Sony Vaio Zs. I'd rather have that than a 15" MBA. Smaller package, way more "screen space".
Can we get over the fact that inches does not mean "more screen space", only more screen surface which is completely useless ?
I think we'll see the Air redefined into a line of laptops that are lighter and thinner than their equivalent MacBook Pros; much like the difference between the 13" MBP and 13" Air. We already have two laptops in the line so in that sense there will be a 15" MacBook Air.
Last edited:
It means more screen space if your goal is to fill up your field of vision, or enlarge a movie from across the room. Don't assume everyone wants a larger screen or more pixels purely for productive reasons.
Only makes a difference for movies and viewing distance. But these aren't TVs. Why sacrifice the portability of your laptop in order to sit across the room from it to watch a movie occasionally ? Very very niche need if you ask me and of course, the only reply anyone does to my posts pointing out screen inches mean nothing. Don't you people have something better to justify your inch fetish ?
Again, the obsession with inches borders on irrationality and ignorance, especially for people who want "more screen space".
MBP redesign to allow a blade SSD plus standard HDD so you have speed for apps and mass storage for media.
Personally, I think that Apple will eventually release a 15" MacBook Pro in the MacBook Air style. Meaning, the future 15" MacBook Pro will have a similar form factor to the Air because it will lack an optical drive. Other than that though, I don't think we will be seeing a 15" branded Air anytime soon.
Have hoped and posted about this for a few years, I'd be first in line to buy one!
I used to get bashed here for suggesting it. An "ultra portable and 15 inches don't belong in the same sentence" ... I hope people are changing their opinion towards that ... when Apple said last October 'the air is the future of mac's ... it gives more hope to our wishes.
Let see how your post does, hope you get less flack from the 15" Air haters than I did, lol.
No doubt it's the future, 17" Air's too!
Last edited:
Whatever. Completely useless? To who, you?
Others may appreciate it, things like 'larger default fonts - easier to read, or easier to see from a distance, less eye strain, bigger background for movies aren't "useless" to a LOT of people.
My 'opinion' - "idiots put 1920x1080 in the 13" Sony Vaio Z's. It's marketed as an 'Executives *work* computer' ... that's cool if the executives job is watching video or working with photo's but if he has to read good luck with the small font ... don't bother with the idea of windows is great at resizing and Sony's default zoom is set to 125% out of the box ... doing that robs you of the screen real estate you 'thought' you gained, it's a freaking farce...
I want one too.. And I'm sure Apple will make one, just not like a lot would hope for. I think Apple's gonna stick with their current Air combo until CDs/DVDs are almost as useless as cassette tapes, then the Pro line and Air line will simply be combined. By then, proccessors will also be more powerful, and basically, there won't be much compromise for the computer being ultra-portable.
That's what I expect.
So you want lower resolution ? Hence, you don't want "more screen space", you want "Less screen space".
Yes, and more pixels = more productivity. I would never "zoom". I need the pixels to display more windows. As a programmer, more pixels = more code on screen, those vertical pixels are especially important, which is why I favor 4:3 over 16:10 and absolutely despise lower resolution 16:9.
These are computers, not TVs. Watching video is absolutely the last of my worries. Reading is fine on 160+ PPI screens, get proper prescription glasses for your poor eyesight.
And if you want "zooming" so much, just run non-native lower resolutions. I can't go higher on the panel, you can go lower.